In Re Guardianship/conservatorship Of: Evan Christopher Stocker

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of:
EVAN CHRISTOPHER STOCKER
Petitioner.
No. 87732-1-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FELDMAN, J. — Victoria Stocker, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court’s
order dismissing her guardianship complaint against Summit NPC regarding the
care of her adult son. 	Because Stocker fails to comply with the basic appellate
rules in several meaningful respects, we dismiss her appeal without reaching the
merits and grant Summit NPC’s request for attorney fees incurred herein.
Stocker summarily argues that the trial court erred by failing to acknowledge
the seriousness of a conservator refusing to pay rent for a vulnerable adult and by
failing to acknowledge a professional guardian’s testimony. Although Stocker
represents 	herself on appeal, 	pro 	se 	litigants must 	comply 	with 	the 	same
procedural and substantive requirements as attorneys. In re Vulnerable Adult Pet.
for Winter, 12 Wn. App. 2d 815, 844, 460 P.3d 667 (2020). If a litigant fails to do
so, the court may decline to reach the merits of that party’s arguments. See State

No. 87732-1-I
- 2 -
v. Wheaton, 121 Wn.2d 347, 365, 850 P.2d 507 (1993); Rhinevault v. Rhinevault,
91 Wn. App. 688, 692, 959 P.2d 687 (1998).
Contrary to basic appellate rules, Stocker’s argument is conclusory, lacks
citation to any legal authority, and is unsupported by legal analysis. 	RAP
10.3(a)(6). Such “[p]assing treatment of an issue” and “lack of reasoned argument”
does not merit judicial consideration. Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. App. 533,
538, 954 P.2d 290 (1998). Nor does Stocker provide record citations in stating the
operative facts, as required by RAP 10.3(a)(5). Because Stocker’s two-page brief
consists entirely of bald assertions lacking cited factual and legal support, she “has
failed to present developed argument for our consideration on appeal.” 	West v.
Thurston County., 168 Wn. App. 162, 187, 275 P.3d 1200 (2012). Accordingly, we
do not—because we cannot—address any asserted errors. 	We therefore grant
Summit NPC’s request that we dismiss Stocker’s appeal on this basis.
Summit NPC also requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to RAP 18.1
and RCW 11.96A.150 for fees incurred in responding to Stocker’s appeal. 	RAP
18.1(a) allows a party to recover attorney fees incurred on appeal where applicable
law permits such a recovery. RCW 11.96A.150(1) provides an appellate court with
discretion to award costs, including reasonable attorney fees, in guardianship
litigation. 	Matter of Guardianship of Mesler, 21 Wn. App. 2d 682, 720, 507 P.3d
864 (2022) (awarding fees to substantially prevailing party in guardianship appeal).
Stocker has not filed a reply brief opposing this request. Because Stocker’s brief
fails to comply with the applicable rules in numerous respects and fails to present
any reasoned argument, we exercise our discretion under RCW 11.96A.150(1) to

No. 87732-1-I
- 3 -
award Summit NPC its reasonable attorney fees on appeal subject to compliance
with RAP 18.1.
DISMISSED.
WE CONCUR: